Static Main Menu

The Civil Disobedience Movement of India – A Close View

Article shared by :

This article provides a close view on the civil disobedience movement of India.

National Movements:

Death of C. R. Das in 1925 and the disruption of the Swarajya Party and the recall of the non-co-operation movement etc. had some­what damped the national movement, but the appointment of Simon Commission by the British government gave a fillip to the national movement.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Lord Irwin (1926-31) on assumption office found that it would not be possible to run the administration of British India in accordance with the provisions of the Reforms Act of 1919, also known as Mont-ford reforms. It was at his instance that the British government appointed the Simon Commission in 1927, two years earlier than the year in which it was to have been appointed.

Accord­ing to the terms of the reforms of 1919 a Commission was to be appointed after ten years of the introduction of the reforms to report about their workings.

But the condition prevailing in India as also in view of the fact that England was to have its general election in 1929, the Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir John Simon was appointed in 1927. There were altogether seven members on the Commission but not a single Indian was included in it. With the appointment of the Simon Commission the national movement in India began with renewed vigour.

Non-inclusion of any Indian in the Commission was taken by the Congress and other political parties as a national insult. For, no Indian could see the logic of appoint­ing a Commission comprising all British members for recommending what would be suitable constitutional reforms for the Indians. Naturally the Congress boycotted the Simon Commission.

Other politi­cal parties of India also did likewise. The day on which the Commission reached India was observed as day of total hartal all over India. National movement again acquired strength (1928), In 1927 the Congress in its Madras session adopted independence as its ultimate goal. After an all-party conference, Motilal Nehru who was entrusted with the task of drawing a constitution for India, the Nehru Report was submitted which recommended Dominion Status for India, that is, a constitutional status as was being enjoyed by the then British Dominions of Canada New Zealand, Australia etc. (1928).

In the same year in the Calcutta session of the Congress Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Basu put; up demand for full independence instead of Dominion Status. Younger section of the Congress sup­ported Nehru and Subhas Chandra. Mahatma Gandhi made a com­promise by taking a decision that if the British Parliament would grant Dominion Status to India by December 31, 1929, it would be accepted or else the Congress would launch a movement and begin a no tax campaign. In the situation Lord Irwin announced that granting of Dominion Status was the aim of the British government and for a discussion on this matter a Round Table Conference would be summoned in London after the submission of Simon Commission report.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

But it was abundantly clear to the people of India that the British public opinion was not in favour of even granting Dominion Status to India. Lord Irwin’s announcement was therefore severely criticized in India. The Congress realized that to expect any reason­able reforms from the British government would be foolish. In the Lahore session in 1929, the Congress demanded full independence, and decided not to attend the Round Table Conference mentioned in the announcement by Lord Irwin. Need-less to say that the British government did not care to grant Dominion Status to India by Decem­ber 31, 1929.

In the meantime Mohammad Ali Jinnah put forward certain demands later known as his Fourteen Points. In the all-party con­ference these demands were rejected.

Jinnah therefore in the Muslim Conference held on January 1, 1929 circulated these demands in the form of Fourteen Points which were:

(i) A federal system of govern­ment must be introduced in India,

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(ii) All component States of this federation must have equal rights,

(iii) One-third of the members of the Central Legislature must be taken from the Muslims,

(iv) In every elected body provisions for adequate number of Muslim repre­sentatives must be kept,

(v) Communal Award must be introduced, but any community might refuse to accept it at will,

ADVERTISEMENTS:

(vi) The Pro­vinces must be reconstituted but care must be taken so that the Muslim majority in the Province like Bengal, North-West Frontier Province and Uttar Pradesh was not impaired,

(vii) There, must be freedom of religion,

(viii) If the representatives of any community Would object to the passing of any bill or resolution, and if the number of the representatives of the community thus objecting be one-fourth of the total number of the members of the house, the bill or the resolution would not be passed,

(ix) Sind must be formed into a separate Province,

(x) Adequate number of Muslims must be appointed to government posts,

(xi) Muslim education, culture, language and literature must be protected and developed,

(xii) At least one-third of the ministers of the Central and the Provincial governments must be taken from the Muslims,

(xiii) No change or amendment in the constitution should be made without ascertaining the opinion of the Provincial Legislatures,

(xiv) Constitutional re­forms must be introduced in North-West Frontier Province and Balu­chistan.

It goes without saying that the Fourteen Points of Jinnah were against the basic principles of democracy, and were blatantly commu­nal. It was from that time that Jinnah put himself heart and soul in spreading the poison of communalism among the Indian Muslims.

During the demonstration against Simon Commission on October 30, 1928 the Police struck Lala Lajpat Ray on his head which ulti­mately led to his death. This convulsed whole of India and the revolutionaries all over India began to take revenge against the British. In Lahore Saunders, the Police Superintendent was killed. Revolutionary activities also began in Punjab, Bengal, Madras, Bihar, Delhi etc. As the government started cruel oppression of the revo­lutionaries in jail, the revolutionaries kept in Lahore jail in connec­tion with Lahore conspiracy case began fasting. Jatin Das, a Bengali youth fasted unto death in Lahore jail in protest against the inhuman torture by the jail authorities on the revolutionaries.

All this sent a wave of condemnation of the British all over the country and there was uncontrollable anti-British feelings all over. In the circumstances it became necessary to popularize the demand for full freedom from the British rule and Jawaharlal Nehru and Subhas Chandra Basu established Independence League which created a universal demand for full independence. In the Lahore session it was decided to start civil disobedience if Dominion Status was not granted by 1929 but no details about the civil disobedience movement had been chalked out. The entire matter was left to Mahatma Gandhi.

Independence Day:

Early in January, 1930, the Congress Working Committee in order to popularize the demand for indepen­dence decided that every year 26th of January would be observed as Independence Day. On that day every year till 1950, the Indians used to take a pledge which was prepared by Mahatma Gandhi himself.

The pledge declared “We hold it to be a crime against man and God to submit any longer to a rule that has caused this four-fold disaster (economic, political, cultural and spiritual) to our country. We recognise, however, that the most effective way of gaining our freedom is not through violence. We will, therefore, prepare our­selves by withdrawing, so far as we can, all voluntary association from the British government, and will prepare for civil disobedience in­cluding non-payment of taxes. We, therefore, hereby solemnly re­solve to carry out the Congress instructions issued from time to time for the purpose of establishing Puma Swaraj.”

In that year (1930) Independence Day was observed with great eclat. Henceforth January 26, Every year used to be day of dedica­tion to the cause of independence of the country. In creating an urge for national independence among the Indians, the observance of Independence Day was of great importance. After independence when the constitution of India was adopted the former Independence Day, i.e. January 26, was made Republic Day. In this way the former Independence Day has been commemorated.

Civil Disobedience Movement, First Phase 1930:

Pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Congress in 1928, Mahatma Gandhi began his famous Dandee march on March 12, 1930 with 79 male .and female satyagrahis to violate the salt law by manufacturing salt. Mahatma Gandhi with his followers covered 380 kilometers of road on foot in 24 days reaching Dandee on April 5. Next day (April 6, 1930) Mahatma Gandhi disobeyed the salt law by manufacturing salt from sea water.

Salt was also manufactured by Congress satyagrahis, in Contain in Midapore and Mahishbathan in 24 parganas. Civil disobedience also included breaking of law under Sec. 144. Side by side with civil disobedience non-co-operation by way of boycotting British-made goods, picketing at the gates of schools and colleges, law courts etc. made the Congress movement a very wide and power­ful one. Mahatma Gandhi now decided to occupy the salt factory and godown at Dharsana in Surat district.

He gave notice to the governor general to abolish duty on salt and to permit the Indians to manufacture salt freely or else he would occupy Dharsana salt factory and godown. But before he started for Dharsana, he was put under arrest. Abbas Tyabji now took the leadership of salt satyagraha. He was also arrested. Next came Sarojini Naidu to lead the salt satyagraha. She started for Dharsana with 2500 satyagrahis for occupying the salt factory and godown at Dharsana. Attempts were also made for occupying the salt godown at Okhalda but the police severely beat off the satyagrahis and prevented them from occupying the salt factory and godown at Dharsana and the salt godown at Okhalda. Sarojini Niadu was arrested and jailed.

When the civil disobedience and non-violent non-co-operation movement had acquired greater and greater momentum the govern­ment also increased the intensity of cruel repression of the satyagrahis. In Calcutta, Madras, Bombay, Delhi, Midnapore and some other places male and female satyagrahis were subjected to inhuman torture. The Indian National Congress was declared illegal, and its leaders were put under arrest. Maulana Azad was imprisoned for encouraging the people in a meeting at Meerut to break the salt law.

In North-West Frontier Province, the Afghan chief Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan was the leader of a party called Khodai Khidmatgar, i.e., servants of God, also called Red Shirts. He came under the influence of Mahatma Gandhi and joined Congress (1931). He became a firm believer in the principle of non-violence and the policy of non-co-operation of Gandhiji. Unusually strong physically the Ptahaus were never tired of violence. They were also intensely anti-British in feeling. But Abdul Gaffar Khan who had become a convert to non-violence led the intrepid Pathans into the ways of non-violence. Under his leadership non-violent non-co-operation and civil disobe­dience movement went on all through-out the North-Western Pro­vince.

In Peshawar the government resorted to firing by the military in order to suppress the civil disobedience movement there. A large number of satyagrahis lost their lives and many were left wounded. Abdul Gaffar Khan’s deep sense of nationalism, his belief in principle of non-violence, and his great success in civil disobedience movement gave him a place of great honour in the minds of the Indians. The Indian lovingly gave him the name Frontier Gandhi.

In Punjab when civil disobedience movement assumed a great force, the government’s repression exceeded all reasonable limits. Attempt on the life of the governor at Lahore made the government unleash a reign of terror all over Punjab. One special feature of the civil disobedience movement in Punjab was that the Muslims also took part in it. Apart from Punjab, civil disobedience movement acquired great strength in different towns of Bihar, Assam. Central Provinces, Gujarat, United Provinces and different other parts of India. In Patna, Bhagalpur, Monghyr etc. repression by the police and military exceeded all limits.

In all parts of Bengal the disobedience movement spread like wild fire and government policy of inhuman torture also knew no bounds. It Midnapore the salt satyagrahis were fired upon, women satyagrahis were subjected to most uncivilized treatment. The residences of the satyagrahis were set ablaze. Midnapore’s contribution to the civil disobedience movement was greatest compared to that of any other single district in India, and naturally occupies a high position in the history of the Indian national movement.

In the civil disobedience movement about 90 thousand satyagrahis were imprisoned. Among the leaders who were arrested and imprisoned mention may be made of Mahatma Gandhi, Motilal Nehru, Jawaharlal Nehru, and his wife Kamala Nehru, Subhas Chandra Basu, Abul Kalam Azad. Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Abbas Tyabji, Sarojini Naidu etc.

In the meantime Sir John Simon had submitted his report (May, 1930) in which recommendations were made for the establishment of res­ponsible government in India, extension of franchise, abolition of the system of nominating members to the legislatures. It was also recom­mended that the British government must retain control over the Central government and make efforts to establish a federal type of government in India in future.

On the basis of this report and the announcement made by Lord Irwin earlier, the British government summoned a Round Table Con­ference in London in 1930. Congress had already decided not to participate in the Round Table Conference.

First Round Table Conference (1930):

Except Congress all other Political parties and the representatives of the native states attended the first session of the Round Table Conference. Among the members who joined, the names of Tej Bahadur Sapru, Jayakar, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, Dr. Ambedkar are worth special mentioning.

British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald put up three propo­sals, viz.,

(i) To establish a federal government in India,

(ii) To grant self-government to the Provinces, and

(iii) To retain control over the Central government by the British government.

After deliberations the members present agreed to the suggestion that all powers that were being exercised by the Parliament over the Indian government would not be desirable to be handed over to India all at once and for that reason the foreign affairs and defence would remain in full charge of the governor-general for some time.

But Jinnah’s demand for separate electorate for the Muslims became breaking point. Jinnah also did not fail to raise his Fourteen Points as demands of the Indian Muslims. Ambedkar also demanded separate electorate for the backward classes. In any case, the absence of any representatives from the Congress had sealed the fate of the Conference. Ramsay MacDonald expressed hope that the Congress would in response to the invitation of the governor-general would attend the second session of the Round Table Conference.

The British government was almost compelled, under the circum­stances, to release Mahatma Gandhi. On his release Mahatma Gandhi entered into a Pact with Lord Irwin (1931) by which the government agreed to release all satyagrahis unconditionally except those who were involved in violent activities. Those satyagrahis whose properties had been confiscated were returned to them. An enquiry into the Police atriocites during the civil disobedience movement was to be held. Mahatma Gandhi agreed to suspend the civil disobedience movement and to attend the second session of the Round Table Conference.

Second Round Table Conference (1931):

In September 1931, the second session of the Round Table Conference was convened in .London which was also participated by the Congress through Mahatma Gandhi as its sole representative. In the meantime in England the Laobur government was replaced by a National govern­ment, and although Ramsay MacDonald was the Prime Minister the number of ministers from the Conservative Party was the largest. Samuel Hoare was the Secretary of State for India.

The main points of discussion of this session of the Conference were the federal form of government and separate electorate. Mahatma Gandhi demanded immediate establishment of responsible government both at the Centre and the Provinces. The governments both at the Centre and the Provinces were to be run by Indian elected representatives res­ponsible to elected legislatures. He also made it clear that there was no necessity for keeping any special powers in the hands of the governor-general.

The Muslim, Hindu Backward classes, Anglo-Indian, Indian Christian representatives as well as the representatives of business interests entered into an agreement and demanded separate electorate. The Hindus and the Sikhs, however, did not agree to this demand. Gandhiji argued that the first thing necessary to be done was the making of the Constitution for the Indians. If the question of com­munal representation needed solution, that might be found by a tribunal composed of judges. But the communal problem proved so intractable that despite Mahatma Gandhi’s efforts no solution was possible. In disgust Gandhiji returned to India empty handed.

Third Round Table Conference (1932):

In 1932 the third session of the Round Table Conference met which was not attended by any representative of the Congress. The Conference met in an atmosphere of despair and did not arrive at any tangible decision.

Civil Disobedience Movement: Second Phase (1932-34):

On his return from the Second session of the Round Table Conference empty handed, Mahatma Gandhi noticed that there was a great resent­ment among the people of the country for the unwillingness of the British government to introduce any constitutional reforms for India. The enquiry which was to be carried out into the Police atrocities during the Civil Disobedience Movement had been relegated into a farce. During the civil disobedience Movement the peasants had stopped payment of land revenue to the government. But the government now had started collecting revenue from the peasants forcibly without having any prior consultation with the Congress.

Under instruction from the Congress the peasants again stopped payment of land revenue. For this Jawaharlal Nehru and Purusattamdas Tandon were arrested. In North-West Frontier Pro­vince the Red Shirts were declared illegal and Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan and his brother Khan Sahib and a large number of Red Shirts were imprisoned. In the United Provinces Bengal, North-West Frontier Province a terrible situation had arised due to police atro­cities.

In Bengal revolutionary terrorism had reappeared and the British government let loose a reign of terror. Mahatma Gandhi had reached India on December 28, 1931 from the Second Round Table Conference and lodged a strong protest to the new viceroy Lord Wellingdon (1931-36) against the policy of repression pursued by the government.

But no notice was taken of Mahatma Gandhi’s protest and despite repeated requests Wellingdon did not agree to even meet Mahatma Gandhi. It became abundantly dear that the loss of prestige that the British government had suffered due to the signing of Gandhi-Irwin Pact was sought to be fully avenged tinder Lord Wellingdon. There was no alternative before the Congress but to launch another civil disobedience movement.

This was the second phase of the move-men (1932-34). No sooner the declaration of the launching of the civil disobedience movement was made than the government arrested the members of the Congress Working Com­mittee and other leaders, confiscated the Congress fund and the Con­gress office was sealed. Inhuman atrocities on the satyagrahis, by both police and the military, imprisonment without trial, lathi-charge, firing on unarmed men and women satyagrahis, violating the honour of women, levying of punitive tax on vast areas, torture of the satya­grahis within the jails and all this, unleashed a reign of terror. Yet the satyagrahis undaunted by British repression came out in thousands to continue the movement.

In the meantime (1932) Ramsay MacDonald introduced Com­munal Award by which the Muslims, Christians, Backward Hindus, Sikhs, Anglo-Indians etc. were granted separate electorate’, that is, they were permitted to elect their own representatives to the legislatures. By dividing the Indians on communal basis the British sought to weaken the national movement in India.

In order to divide the Hindus into separate communities the backward class was given separate electorate. Finding that the poison of communalism was even being spread among the Hindus, Mahatma Gandhi began fast­ing unto death in protest. Ultimately Dr. Ambedkar signed the Poona Pact with Mahatma Gandhi by which the backward Hindus were allowed to have doubled the number of seats than what the Com­munal Award had allotted to them and Ambedkar rejected Communal Award. The Sikhs had refused to accept Communal Award.

The civil disobedience movement went on unabated even after the Poona Pact. On May 8, 1933, Mahatma Gandhi began twenty-one days fast for self-purification and he requested the Congress President to call off the civil disobedience movement for the time being. The calling off of the civil disobedience movement caused great resentment among the people although they refrained from any open demonstra­tion against Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi had in the mean­time been released from jail.

He again started individual satyagraha on August 1, 1933. He was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment for one year. But the instance of Mahatma Gandhi was followed by many Congress men by offering individual satyagraha. They were all arrested and thrown into prison. From within the jail Mahatma Gandhi wanted to launch a movement against untouchability, but the government prevented him from doing so. He therefore began a fast during which his condition began to deteriorate and the govern­ment fearing that anything might happen to Mahatma Gandhi released him on August 23, 1933. Thereafter he addressed himself to the task of the uplift of the Harijans. Next year (1934) there was a terrible earthquake in Bihar which needed the service of all the leaders of the Congress. The individual civil disobedience naturally died out.

The second phase of civil disobedience movement resulted in the imprisonment of one lac twenty thousand satyagrahis. Government repression with a view to suppressing this movement exceeded all bounds of civilized conduct. Lathi charge, firing on unarmed and non-violent men and women satyagrahis, violating women’s honour, confiscation of the properties of the satyagrahis, torturing he satya­grahis within jails etc. were resorted to by the government.

The sudden calling off of the second phase of the civil disobedience movement by Mahatma Gandhi created a feeling all over India that all the sacrifice had gone in vain and there was visible resentment to Gandhiji’s action. Jawaharlal Nehru, and Vithalbhai Patel, then in Vienna, expressed displeasure at Gandhiji’s calling off the movement. Mahatma Gandhiji’s argument for calling off the movement was to stop the inhuman repression on the satyagrahis.

In fact, Lord Welling- don’s administration constituted an infamous chapter in the history of the British administration in India. Never before repression of the satyagrahis had been so inhuman and barbarous. Besides, the Com­munal Award had poisoned the relations of the different communities in India. All this thoroughly disillusioned Mahatma Gandhi about the humanity of the British government.

As in a battle the general’s responsibility is to retreat considering the impossibility of the situa­tion in order to save the lives of the soldiers, so did Mahatma Gandhi seek to save the satyagrahis from the barbarity and oppression of the British government by calling off the movement. His sense of res­ponsibility, may be said to have prompted him to call off the move­ment although many did not see eye to eye with him.

In 1935 Government of India Act was passed, but the Congress did not agree to work out the reforms introduced by it. It was after Lord Linlithgow had given an assurance that the government would not interfere in the day to day affair of the ministries or of the legislatures, that the Congress agreed to work out the Provincial self- government part of the reforms.

Success of the Congress: Despair at the Activities of the Government: Resignation by Congress:

In the general election held in 1937 according to the provisions of the Government of India Act, 1935, Congress came out with absolute majority in seven out of eleven provinces of the time. In two, Congress obtained single majority and in two others, that is, in Bengal and Punjab Muslim League got single majority. Having failed to do well in the general elections Jinnah suggested that there should be Congress-Muslim League coalition in all provinces.

This would mean Muslim League would accommodate Congress only in two provinces of Bengal and Punjab and in the bargain get into the ministries of nine other provinces where they had absolutely no claim to have any share in the ministry. The Congress was agreeable to the suggestion of Jinnah if the Muslim League would adopt the Con­gress ideals as its own, which obviously they would not agree to do. In absence of Congress support Muslim League failed to form ministry in Bengal and Punjab.

In all other provinces Congress formed ministries. Having failed in the election as well as in strategy Jinnah began to whip up communal feeling, and make wild criticism of the Congress ministries: The efficiency of the Congress ministries enhanced the prestige and the popularity of the Congress manifold.

In the meantime a leftist section within the Congress arose under the leadership of Subhas Chandra Basu. Subhas Chandra was perhaps the most popular political leader of the time. In spite of the open opposition of Mahatma Gandhi, Rajaji, Patel and other right wing Congress leaders Subhas Chandra contested the election for the Presi­dentship of the Congress for the second time and defeated Pattabhi Sitaramaia.

But in Tripuri Congress his difference with the right wing Congress leaders became so acute that he had to resign Presi­dentship of the Congress. He organised a new political party called Forward Block which was leftist in political ideology within the Congress. But due to his difference he was ultimately expelled from the Congress for six years. He, therefore, left Congress.

In the same year (1939) the British government involved India in Second. World War without consulting the Congress ministry. The Congress demanded of the British to state specifically the war aims of the British government and whether end of imperialist con­trol over India was one of these aims.

The British government avoided clear answer to Congress demands; the viceroy Linlithgow (1936-43) declared that during the course of the war an Advisory Council would be constituted with Indian representatives and the government would take its advice in the conduct of the war and in solution of the war problems and situations.

There was not a word about the independence of India. Congress felt thoroughly disappointed at this attitude of the British government and their resigned from the ministries in different provinces. The resig­nation of the Congress ministries was a matter of great jubilation for Jinnah and his Muslim League.

He celebrated the resignation as the Day of Deliverance, and taking advantage of the situation formed ministries in some of the provinces. Jinnah had made wild charges against the Congress ministries when they were in power. Now the Congress demanded an independent enquiry into their activities by the Chief Justice Sir Maurice Gawyer of the Federal Court in India, which Jinnah found very inconvenient and did not agree to do. Abul Kalam Azad did not hesitate to call Jinnah’s charges as blatant lies.

He also said in most unequivocal terms that under the Congress ministries no injustice was done either to the Muslim minorities or for the matter of that to any other minorities. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad remained at the vanguard of the Indian national movement with other leaders like C. R. Das, Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Subhas Chandra Basu and by keeping himself always far above communal ism he has left his name to be remembered with great esteem by the Indians for all time.

During the Second World War when the Allies were being defeated in almost all fronts by Axis Powers, the Congress was willing to render help to the war efforts of the British on condition that the British government must form a National government at the Centre. But Lord Linlithgow did not agree to this suggestion of the Congress.

By a declaration on August 8, 1840 Linlithgow informed the Indians that after the end of the war a Constituent Assembly would be con­vened to draw up the future constitution for India. He also expressed his willingness to extend his Executive Council by taking in more members and to form a War-Advisory Council taking representatives from all parts of India. He also mentioned that Power would not be handed over to the Congress alone. In other words he meant to say that he would not do anything without Muslim League. This declaration naturally encouraged Jinnah very much.

Two-Nation Theory:

Two-nation theory, that is, the Hindus- and the Muslims in India are two separate nations is not the brain­child of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. In 1888 Sir Syed Ahmed in a meet­ing in Meerut for the first time said that the Hindus and Muslims of India were not only two separate nations but were mutually hostile. In 1930 poet and politician Iqbal proposed formation a separate Mus­lim state.

When Round Table Conference was being held in London, Rahamat Ali who was then a student at Cambridge put forward the demand for Pakistan which all responsible Muslim leaders rejected as- the figment of imagination of an immature young man. In 1940- Mohammad Ali Jinnah revived the two-nation theory and the demand for Pakistan. In January, 1940 he declared that Hindus and Muslims were two separate nations, their difference was not only religious but also racial. He therefore raised the demand for the establishment of a separate state Pakistan.

Progressive Muslims did not support this two-nation theory of Jinnah. But Jinnah was not willing to recognise the existence of the progressive, i.e. the nationalist Muslims. He claimed that the Muslim League was the sole representative of the Indian Muslims. In the Lahore session of the Muslim League in, 1940, the Muslim League adopted the resolution demanding Pakistan.

The communal orga­nisation Muslim League had not only readily adopted the Pakistan resolution but began to spread the poison of communalism. Taking advantage of the difference between the Congress and the Muslim League the British found it easy to cling to Power in India.

The argument of the British government was that if the British would quit India there would be communal trouble which would leave India in a shambles. Mahatma Gandhi told the British that they would better not think of the Indians, for with their departure the commu­nal problem would be automatically solved. But it was not to the interest of the British to leave India and they clung to power on the pretext of saving India from communal trouble. Mahatma Gandhi, in the circumstances, began individual satyagraha.

Welcome to HistoryDiscussion.net! Our mission is to provide an online platform to help students to discuss anything and everything about history. This website includes study notes, research papers, essays, articles and other allied information submitted by visitors like YOU.

Before sharing your knowledge on this site, please read the following pages: